# Generation I



## Thorne (May 23, 2010)

Why do everyone (or at least a whole lot of people) say the Pokémon designs from Generation I was the best and most creative?

I mean, it makes no sense to me at all. Let's compare two of my favourite poison-types, for example.






JEEZ THERE'S CERTAINLY LOT OF EFFORT GONE INTO THIS DESIGN, NOW AM I RIGHT






THIS DESIGN IS UNCREATIVE AND UNAPPEALING

It baffles how any sane man could think something like that, and these words come from someone who grew up with generation I and II. Could someone elaborate for me?


----------



## Frosty~ (May 23, 2010)

This explains it


----------



## Togetic (May 23, 2010)

I always love how people say Gen I is better.

Because Magnemite -> Magneton is more original than Snorunt -> Froslass.

Okay, sure there isn't much connection, but at least it isn't the same crap, just tripled.


----------



## Tailsy (May 23, 2010)

When my friends say this, I just show them a picture of Voltorb.

They shut up.


----------



## Karkat Vantas (May 23, 2010)

Nostalgia filter much?


----------



## Murkrow (May 23, 2010)

I hate it how when people have an actual opinion that gen 1 was better, they get ignored for "nostalgia goggles" or "growing up". Not everyone is blinded by nostalgia, so I don't like that comic that was linked. Sure some people blindly defend what they remember when they were younger but not everyone is like that. Some new Pokémon _are_ ugly, but that doesn't necessarily mean that all of the new ones are, or that there weren't ugly original ones.

Also I feel like the only one who likes the new water starter :C

I don't know about uncreative but I find a lot more of the newer ones ugly. I don't find any of the originals ugly any more because I've gotten used to them, but I do find more ugly gen 4 ones than I think I would have if gen 1 came out now. It may be because there were fewer Pokémon back then and so fewer ugly ones as well, though. 

The only 'uncreative' thing I find about gen 4 is things like how Starly/Bidoof are basically Pidgey/Rattata. But then, if they just put Pidgey and Rattata in, people would complain that it's too similar to the original games, and they couldn't just not put any new Pokémon in there. So I agree that people who complain about uncreativeness haven't thought about what they're complaining about.


Something that I like to complain about though is the cries of gen 4 Pokémon! The originals might have been the exact same cries over and over but slightly changed, but they sounded okay to me. I absolutely hate the newer cries though. I don't know what is it about the cries but they just don't sound Pokémony. Especially with examples like Gallade, that doesn't even sound remotely like Kirlia or Gardevoir. But I won't say any more about that before I go too off topic, heh.

I have to say that Croagunk and Toxicroak are two of my least favourite 4th gen Pokémon, so I don't like it's used as an example there :(


----------



## Sandstone-Shadow (May 23, 2010)

Creativity doesn't necessarily imply complexity, though. Yes, Muk is a lot plainer than Toxicroak, but that doesn't mean it's any less creative. In fact, I see more creativity in Muk because it's so different from any living creature in existance; it's a walking pile of sludge, and we don't have walking piles of sludge around outside. Nor do we have fighting humanoid frog creatures, but we have frogs and we have humans.

All generations of Pokémon are creative. They are creative in different ways; the first generation of Pokémon was made with a simple, solid kind of creativity and other generations were made with a decorative, visual kind of creativity. Neither is better than the other; people just have different preferences. Personally I am more a fan of the simple creativity, so I like the earlier generations better. And that's just me; everyone sees creativity in different ways.


----------



## Arylett Charnoa (May 23, 2010)

I agree with Sandstone-Shadow.

Me, I don't really like Pokemon in terms of specific Generations, I just like specific Pokemon. I've been around since Gen II and I don't really prefer the Gen II Pokemon designs over all others, nor do I prefer Gen I designs over all others. I don't mind newer Pokemon or older Pokemon or any. Although if I had to pick a Generation that has the most of my favourites, I'd say it would be Gen III.


----------



## Elliekat (May 23, 2010)

I agree with what other people have said. I like and dislike various Pokemon from various regions. For example, I really dislike Venonat and Raticate, but I love Persian and Dewgong. 

What I really like about specific games is the region. This is why I tend to prefer Hoenn, and I don't like Sinnoh. The natural aspect of Hoenn just attracts me, I guess. I don't judge those who like Sinnoh or Sinnoh Pokemon better, it's just that I don't really prefer it.

However, those that are already judging the 5th gen? We've seen all of 5 new Pokemon so far, and there's really not that much of a basis for an argument.


----------



## spaekle (May 23, 2010)

I think there are good and bad ideas in every generation. I'm really not fond of the way the first gen tended to just add more heads to something and/or make it look angrier and call it an evolution, or the way some of the Pokemon were seriously just cartoon animals with fire or whatever thrown on, but I mean it had a few cool ideas. I think it's interesting that they decided to go with Rafflesia and Nepenthes plants over, say, a generic flower Pokemon first. We got things like Electabuzz and Magmar too (I'm not really sure what the hell either of those are supposed to be, at least!).

Personally, the third gen is my favorite overall as far as Pokemon designs/concepts go. We got crinoids, a ceolocanth, a fucking _volcano camel_, a possessed toy that uses itself as a voodoo doll, a very stylized snake/mongoose set, whatever the fuck Ludicolo is, not just a cicada but a possessed cicada skin too!, a shakkou, a Pokemon with changing spots...

I don't really like how the idea behind the fourth gen seemed to be "let's take the few Pokemon from previous gens that _were_ perfectly fine and original and make them as fugly as we can", but I mean a few cool things came out of it and the fourth gen has Croagunk so I forgive it. 

For the record, I don't mind the first gen at all - it has plenty of my favorites, especially considering it has the most poison-types. It's nowhere near the most creative group though.


----------



## Thorne (May 23, 2010)

You people sure had an unexpected amount of things to say about this subject. ._. There's definitively sense in what you say, thought.


----------



## Vipera Magnifica (May 24, 2010)

Generation III had awesome designs, like Spaekle said. Generation IV had some cool evolutions, but it had also Probopass and Lickilicky, which are just plain hideous. The lake guardian trio isn't too awful, but they look all the same with different colors. The legendary birds were much more unique. That being said, Generation I was also very cool. It set the precedent for all generations to come. Generation II had some cool new designs, but many were just plain boring.


----------



## Yarnchu (May 24, 2010)

I honestly prefer the simpler Gen 1 and 2 designs, as uncreative as they maybe compared to the newer designs. Although Smugleaf is the greatest thing ever next to Charizard.

Though Croagunk and Toxicroak and some others get awesome points for being....awesome. It's not like I hate the new designs, I just find more of them to be fugulier than some older ones.


----------



## Karkat Vantas (May 24, 2010)

superyoshi888 said:


> I honestly prefer the simpler Gen 1 and 2 designs, as uncreative as they maybe compared to the newer designs. Although Smugleaf is the greatest thing ever next to Charizard.


Charizard was one of the most uncreative designs of that generation imo but w/e

Complexity doesn't mean anything, really. I like some complex designs, but I like simple designs as well. However, I think a lot of designs in Gen. I were... too simple. Anyone can draw a horse with a fire mane or a pile of sludge with eyes. But what really pisses me off is that they put absolutely no effort into designing the evolutions. A fire horse turning into a larger fire horse? Brilliant! A whack-a-mole turning into three whack-a-moles? Best design ever!


----------



## Butterfree (May 25, 2010)

It's simple. People tend to subjectively like the first-generation designs better for any of a variety of reasons (such as a preference for the more natural-looking animalistic designs of the first generations, simply happening to have a bunch of all-time favorites in the first generation, or just plain old nostalgia goggles), but because they want to feel more validated about it, they latch on to the first objective-sounding argument that they can think of, such as "The new ones are so uncreative!", even if it makes no sense at all.

Alternatively, they don't need to think of it themselves because they've heard everybody else saying it, and all those people can't be wrong.


----------



## #1 bro (May 25, 2010)

i think the main issue people have with some of the newer pokemon is that they have a sort of "design by committee" feel to them that the most of the older ones don't. it does seem like all the new ones have elaborate forms, cheesy portmanteau names, and origins in exotic animal wildlife, where back in 1995 i guess they didn't really give a shit and so some guy just drew a crab and decided it would be a water type called "krabby", which i think is a lot more endearing and "real" for a lot of people. 

another thing is that i think some of the more recent legendaries have managed to alienate people with their creepy robot forms and almighty godlike powers. if you ask me, it was definitely a lot better back when the legendaries were just elemental birds and cats with powers not too far removed from normal pokemon. 

personally, i think generations I and II had the best designs, although IV was a step above III. to be honest, the quality has been more or less consistent across the series, and there are only one or two pokemon that i feel have designs which are so bad that they actually take away from the overall product. any preference for the older games is probably, like the above posters have said, mostly nostalgia.


----------



## Murkrow (May 25, 2010)

Zeta Reticuli said:


> another thing is that i think some of the more recent legendaries have managed to alienate people with their creepy robot forms and almighty godlike powers. if you ask me, it was definitely a lot better back when the legendaries were just elemental birds and cats with powers not too far removed from normal pokemon.


I agree that it was better when they were like normal Pokémon but legendary, as opposed to godlike, but when I think about the actual Pokémon introduced in the fourth generation, I don't mind the legendaries as much as I would have thought. What bothers me about the godlikeness of the legendaries is how they've changed the game from being catch-em-all to save-the-world.

I think some of the newer legendaries look a bit unappealing but for some unknown reason I just don't mind them. I guess I've gotten used to them like the uglier ones from the first generation, since I see more of the legendaries on box art and various places whereas the other Pokémon I don't like don't show up as often so I don't get used to them :/


----------



## Ether's Bane (May 28, 2010)

Generation 3. A fighting biped chicken, a giant axolotl, a floating skull, a heart-shaped fish, and a ghost with diamonds for eyes. And those are just the beginning.


----------



## Karkat Vantas (May 28, 2010)

But those ideas are cool. They sounds weird on paper, but they were pulled off very well.


----------



## Zora of Termina (May 28, 2010)

This whole thread _reeks_ of Ruined FOREVER.

Let's be honest here. The whole "Pokemon's been going downhill because the designs are uncreative (not true)/They changed the battle system/I don't like this/I don't like that" is a bloody tired argument.

I myself have liked _all_ the gens so far, including upcoming Gen V. I'd say the only Pokemon whose designs I really _hate_ are those of Zubat, Tentacool and Geodude. And Bidoof.


----------



## Shadow Serenity (May 29, 2010)

Zora of Termina said:


> I myself have liked _all_ the gens so far, including upcoming Gen V. I'd say the only Pokemon whose designs I really _hate_ are those of Zubat, Tentacool and Geodude. And Bidoof.


Do you really hate their designs or do you hate how annoyingly common they all are? :P


----------



## Zora of Termina (May 29, 2010)

Shadow Serenity said:


> Do you really hate their designs or do you hate how annoyingly common they all are? :P


...Both, really. :D;


----------



## Karkat Vantas (May 29, 2010)

Bidoof is actually pretty well designed. Can't defend Geodude or Zubat, although Tentacool's decent.


----------



## ultraviolet (May 29, 2010)

I don't know if it's that some of the designs are uncreative, but sometimes it seems like they're trying to do a lot with very little. Here's a cool example.
  

While I like all of these pokemon, in essence they're kind of just the same pokemon with more outrageous designs. Meowth is like a 'normal' cat with a lucky neko cat theme, skitty is just a cute, pink normal type, and then glameow is just... I don't even know. Considering that they could have gone with other cool cat-like creatures like ocelots or clouded leopards, it just doesn't make sense to make three small cat pokemon that look so weirdly different.

I tend to like pokemon that are based off of animals and are a bit creative, like kecleon, toxicroak (I hate the pokemon, but the design is cool), girafarig and kangaskhan. I think where the later generations get uncreative is when you get crap like this.

Two completely unneccesary evolutions. You can subsitute any of these with electivire or lickilicky; mamoswine is okay because its evolution actually makes sense, it's a giant mammoth pig thingy. The other guys are just... giant, uglier evolutions that don't relate very well to their prevos. Magmar is a salamander/duck/fire thing, but I don't even know what magmortar is. It's just a giant round fire thing that they seem to have created so you can use magmar (sort of) in competitive battling.

I think the reason why people tend to dislike the later generations design-wise is because there are far more gimmick pokemon like spinda, rotom, chatot and so on. While generation one did have its gimmick pokemon, like porygon, pretty much every pokemon was at least usable so long as it wasn't weak to psychic. Then as the generations go on, more pokemon are created for their designs and for the sake of having a certain kind of pokemon that are pretty much unusable, like castform and unown. 

I have to agree that the legendaries are getting kind of silly now. Originally they were just pokemon that were soverign over one element, and now we have time and space and all the emotions and they're looking less and less like pokemon and more like robots. :c


----------



## Yarnchu (May 29, 2010)

Actually, I'll have to disagree(for the most part) about the 4th Gen evos. Take, for example, this:



And this:




Notice anything? Well, if not, the 4th Gen evolutions(for the older Pokemon, anyways) follow pretty much the exact same mindset as the 1st Gen did: make the Pokemon just a bigger and slightly more extravagant version of its preevolution.

Honestly, I could see Magmortar and Magnezone fitting in with the rest of the Gen 1 bunch. I can say the same of Leafeon and Glaceon, Porygon-Z, Tangrowth, and Electivire. The only ones that really stick out to me would be Rhyperior and Lickilicky, and even then they still fit in with their preevos.

The necessity of such evolutions; however, is debatable.


----------



## Shadow Serenity (May 29, 2010)

Well, one of my theories is that they want to keep the older pokemon popular-ish, so they add new evolutions to them to keep them usable in comparison to the constantly increasing in power things they release each generation (for example, Garchomp). If I'm not mistaken, Persian was one of the really popular choices in the first generation, but now it became pretty much useless due to all the new, hard hitting things.

Still, I suppose they could just, you know, stop making new pokemon that are so bloody overpowered instead of adding evolutions to older pokemon in order to balance things somewhat, but then you'll have people complaining that the new pokemon are no better than the old ones, blah blah. It's just one of those "you can't please everyone" situations.

Edit at the above example: I agree, but the example isn't that good, if you ask me. Look at Pikachu -> Raichu. The coloring is different, and there are various other changes such as the ear and tail designs. Tangrowth is essentially a larger Tangela with arms, nothing more.


----------



## Ether's Bane (May 29, 2010)

Kammington said:


> But those ideas are cool. They sounds weird on paper, but they were pulled off very well.


I meant that those were really good, not really bad.


----------

